Louis V. Riggio
Monday, Jan. 13, 2003

A former diplomat and visa officer, I have been considering immigration questions for over 35 years. Over this period great changes have taken place in both the law and in the magnitude of immigration into the United States. Sept. 11 and Homeland Security have brought the situation into sharp focus.

Indeed, the 2000 Census showed, I believe, our population to be some 7 million larger than estimated. Surprise, anyone?

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" very effectively has been sounding the alarm that not only is our country overrun with illegal aliens, they also have gained immunity in major American communities, presumably because of concern with ethnic voting patterns and sensibilities.

With regard to this "explanation," of course, one wonders how many illegal aliens actually vote. (Some do, of course, an indication of carelessness and ignorance in the registration process.)

In my experience, in the broadest sense it is overgeneralization to say lawful resident aliens and the naturalized are supportive of illegal immigration. They know that many wait their turn for visas lawfully, including relatives and friends. In contrast, the illegals violate our laws (and haven't had the medical examinations required of the lawful) and besmirch the good name of their compatriots.

Mr. O'Reilly evidently realizes that at this point tinkering with the laws is not enough. He promotes putting our military on the Mexican border in order to bring control to that region.

The illegal immigration explosion (which, actually, had its origin many, many years ago) is, indeed, a national security question, most especially in the wake of 9/11. An additional option would be the convoking of the state militias.

This would imply the review and elimination of the many federal, state and local statutes that, in contempt of the federal and many state constitutions, effectively have disarmed honest citizens, those who would form the various militias.

Domestic social questions rarely are raised in this debate. Nevertheless, over the years I have entertained numerous complaints from African-Americans that the foreign waves take their job opportunities. To me, it's amazing that no one seems to have thought of African-Americans while the floodgates have been opened to uncountable millions.

African-Americans have a very important vote (absent them, where would the Democrats be?) and, without them, where would we be today? This is a major mystery crying out to be addressed.

The O'Reilly formula reflects the calamitous dimension of the immigration situation. Big measures are necessary, including assuring the Immigration and Naturalization Service becomes more functional, as indeed may happen under Homeland Security, and that all officers of the law and public officials, all sworn to uphold our Constitution and laws, do so. Also needed is a culture of cooperation among entities and jurisdictions, not our strongest hand in the past.

Finally, in my estimation the key question of all remains untouched. Most immigrants, legal and illegal, come to the United States for a much better way of life and opportunities that elude dreams in their home countries.

I believe it is high time our government called to account the governments of nations flooding us with illegal immigrants. They must answer why they cannot or will not provide opportunity and freedom to their citizens or subjects within their own borders.

Foreign populations present in the United States in some cases may earn more than their fellow citizens at home. This means their being obliged to emigrate to our country serves the interests of their national elites, the remittances being crucial to their economies. Under such circumstances, these latter have little or no interest in improving things at home and stopping illegal emigration

We have seen the spectacle or circus of foreign leaders insisting, with great success, that we refrain from deporting their illegals and, instead, grant them special privileges. This and their unconcern with their suffering people at home must be challenged and the ball returned to them. We must insist they take strong measures to reverse their policies and practices so that their people may have a chance at home.

Failure to do so would result in measures such as reduction of diplomatic representation levels, the suspension of nonimmigrant visas to the offending countries' nationals and the nonrenewal of status to current such visa holders in the United States. The appropriate nonimmigrant visas would continue to be granted governmental officials and international organization employees.

While I have a strong distaste for economic sanctions, where such countries refuse to help their own people, the disapproval of concessionary loans through the World Bank and regional international financial institutions should be considered.

Governments have a responsibility for the welfare of their people. Should they continue to ignore this, we must make it clear to them that we are under no obligation to tolerate the presence of their social onus, the mass illegal immigration of the desperate.

And, of course, we, all political instances, must enforce our immigration laws. Without this, none of these countries will take us seriously.

Louis V. Riggio, a graduate of Yale and Columbia (graduate degrees), is a former U.S. diplomat who served in Inter-American Affairs. His most recent post was commercial consul in Sao Paulo, Brazil. With Nomura Securities International during the '70s and early '80s, he was a negotiatior of the Latin American debt in Japan with the rank of senior vice president of Nomura Securities International. Currently, Mr. Riggio is a professional linguist in Portuguese on contract to the State Department. Military service was with the U.S. Marines.

Mr. Riggio may be reached at lvr38@hotmail.com.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Immigration/Borders

Editor's note:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today